beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,372,197 as well as 5% per annum from April 4, 2018 to November 12, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for the new construction of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household Housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) by setting the contract amount of KRW 820,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from March 8, 2016 to August 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. The Plaintiff, while performing the instant construction project, performed additional construction works that do not exist in the existing contract agreement and design drawings.
C. The Plaintiff received KRW 140,00,000 from the Defendant on January 12, 2016, KRW 90,000,000 on March 19, 2016, KRW 140,000 on April 29, 2016, KRW 100,000 on May 30, 2016, KRW 100,000 on June 30, 2016, KRW 100,000 on June 30, 200, KRW 00 on July 29, 200, KRW 60,000 on December 16, 2016, KRW 00 on KRW 10,00 on KRW 10,00 on KRW 10,00 on December 50, 200, KRW 100 on May 30, 207, 2005; and
2. Determination as to the claim for additional construction cost
A. The fact that the Plaintiff performed an additional construction work that is not in the contract form and design documents of the existing contract while performing the instant construction work is as seen earlier. According to the result of the appraiser D’s appraisal and supplementary commission of appraiser D on December 12, 2018, appraiser D is found to have appraised that the additional construction cost is KRW 126,710,000, according to the appraiser D’s appraisal and supplementary commission of appraiser D of this court.
As seen earlier, in full view of the construction cost of KRW 1,185,00 and construction cost of KRW 9,264,400 for the part where additional construction was installed in the front floor of the part where additional construction was not considered as additional construction, as seen earlier, the additional construction cost for the part where the Plaintiff installed the additional construction is KRW 116,260,60 (= KRW 126,710,000 - KRW 1,185,000 - KRW 9,246,400).
B. Determination 1 as to the parties’ assertion 1) Part which does not recognize as additional construction Ga) The Plaintiff asserts that the additional construction part between rooftop-to-pentpets is an additional construction work, and the Defendant, as a matter of course, has constructed this part in accordance with the law, and is naturally the Plaintiff’s